My post was sort of tongue-in-cheek, but I do feel that if you're a jeans and hoodie guy, you can just find versions of what you love. Identify the qualities you like and find better versions of that thing. Will give an example. 🧵
In 2019, I interviewed @andrew3sixteen, who co-founded @3sixteen (one of my favorite denim brands). He's a busy dude, a family man, and a father to two young boys. I remember him telling me that, except for outerwear, he only buys clothes that can be thrown into the wash.
He doesn't even engage in the kind of meticulous shoe-care techniques that are often talked about online (leather conditioning, polishing, etc). These are his Viberg work boots (new vs old). He prefers things that are easy to care for and get better with age.
3sixteen has been around for over 20 years now. It started as a streetwear brand and then moved to cut-and-sew at some point. I asked Andrew how his style has changed over the years, and he said, "Not much." He still wears hoodies, t-shirts, jeans, and flannels.
"Things just fit better," he told me. He also identified what he likes and found better versions of those things. For example, he realized that he likes heavier flannel shirts, especially ones with coarser, visible weaves. And t-shirts that don't sag after a few washes.
He gave some tips on how to build a wardrobe: focus, learn, try stuff out, ask for help, and have fun. It's not ground-breaking stuff, but it's reasonable and actually how good wardrobes are built.
Some of the stuff I like about his wardrobe:
1. The clothes are made from materials that only get better with age. So the flannel shirts, jeans, and boots actually look *better* when they're beat-up. This way, he never feels he has to replace things. He cherishes what he owns.
2. On top of what are stylistically really basic pieces—jeans, flannels, sweats—he also splurges on cool outerwear. A good jacket can really make an outfit. In the winter, he wears things like deck jackets and a Schott B-3; in the warmer months, he switches to trucker jackets.
3. I also like the way he accessorizes. He wears a lot of jewelry, such as chunky rings, bracelets, and necklaces. The size, styling, and materials suit his aesthetic and add visual interest to what are somewhat simple (but quality) outfits.
Your wardrobe is a pretty personal thing. There's no singular "right" way to build one, and everyone has different goals. Some guys just want to avoid looking "wrong" at the office or at social functions; others want to dress to attract a mate. These are all legitimate goals!
My perspective is very much from the viewpoint of a hobbyist/ enthusiast. I think many solutions approach the process of building a wardrobe as a "minimize time/ maximize output" problem. Like ticking a checkbox from your to-do list. This is from that article about $500 stylists:
Those sorts of approaches feel cold to me. I'm not convinced that guys end up loving what they wear and thus keeping what they buy. But perhaps they do! My feeling is that you should explore what's available and find joy in clothes, but I realize this is not everyone's bag.
Many people have commented on how both of these outfits look boring. But if they express what the guy wants to express, it may be better for him to go down that route and figure out what is a better version of something that *works for him.*
Many of the suggestions I've seen seem to impose someone's vision of style onto that person. But that's like shoving words in someone's mouth. What do they want to express? What language do they like? What makes them happy? IMO, it would be better for him to explore.
So I would reframe it: price is not that important outside of giving you more options. I would not encourage him to replace everything he owns with "more expensive" versions. I would encourage him to explore, like the process of finding your favorite album or restaurant.
If people can't believe that you paid a bunch of money to wear hoodies, but those make you feel good, who cares? Your style does not have to please everyone. Links:
People mistake the notion of taste. Whatever one thinks of Chomky's worldviews, his style is very much a reflection of him as a person: a radical leftist academic who bought tailored clothing during the 1950s and 60s, which gives him a certain familiarity. 🧵
Please note that in the following thread, I am not placing any value judgment on the term "Good Taste." I am only talking about it in the sociological sense. Every group has its own notion of taste, but only one gets privileged. Also, I'm not here to debate Chomsky's politics.
In his book Distinction, Pierre Bourdieu notes that the notion of Good Taste is nothing more than the preferences and habits of the ruling class. In American culture, this class is represented by the likes of William Buckley and George Plimpton.
IMO, people are getting too reductive about synthetic fabrics, equating "natural" with "good" and "synthetic" with "bad." Much depends on the material and how it's used. I will give some examples. 🧵
Nearly every high-end suit, sport coat, or pair of tailored trousers is lined in Bemberg, which is a brand name for cupro (a material made from rayon). Rayon is so great that even the best bespoke tailors in the world use it for lining.
Rayon is a soft, slippery fabric that's often used as a silk substitute. It's more breathable than silk, which is why tailors switched to rayon linings ~100 years ago. Why do you want this material in your jackets and pants?
If someone is serious about traditional aesthetics, they should know something about it. Read Esquire's Encyclopedia of 20th Century Men's Fashions, Apparel Arts, or early issues of Esquire. Many men in the past knew that certain outfits were fine without socks.
The problem with much Twitter discourse about aesthetics is that it's totally ignorant of the past and completely couched in modernity. People's views are knee-jerk reactions to certain groups, trends, or modernity itself. Very little appreciation for nuance and history.
An example of how this manifests: In an effort to signal to others that they are better than the "moderns," some "internet gentlemen" say that grown men should not wear sneakers. This is nothing more than someone who is ignorant of history and wishes to signal to others that they are more sophisticated than the hoi polloi, like a guy posing with a cigar and glass of whiskey.
It's perfectly fine for someone to say that they personally dislike sneakers. But dumb to say that grown men shouldn't wear sneakers. Plenty of men in the past wore sneakers, even ones often held up as an arbiter elegantiarum of men's style: the Duke of Windsor and JFK among them.
These sorts of grand statements only reveal someone's lack of knowledge of the past, even as they wag their fingers about "return to traditions."
Let me tell you a story about a $100 American shirt. 🧵
In 1896, Brooks Brothers president John E. Brooks—grandson to company founder Henry Sands Brooks—saw British polo players wearing something peculiar. Their collar points had little buttons that fastened to their body, preventing them from flying up while riders were in play.
Enamored with the design, Brooks sent a sample to his store in Manhattan with instructions to have the collar copied. Hence, the birth of Brooks Brothers' "polo collar"—also known as the button-down. The design was first put on pullover shirts, then coat-front varieties.
I don't know who Milo is talking about here, but since he has expressed pride in British culture, here are the ways in which his outfit violates British traditions. 🧵
The first and most obvious is that Milo has fastened the bottom-most button on his jacket, something that British men have known not to do since King Edward VI supposedly left his undone (and his courtiers followed). This button is a vestigial detail—not meant to be used.
The second is that the jacket is entirely too small. Look at this suit by Anthony Sinclair, a legendary British tailor who created a pared-down style known as the "Conduit Cut" (called so bc Sinclair was located on Conduit Street when he tailored for Connery). Note clean lines.